ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2025
Prior cueing affects the saccadic response to targets in the praying mantis Sphodromantis lineola.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Testing Bottom-up Cuing Effects on Target Detection and Discrimination in Bumblebees.Journal of insect behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
External cues bias human attention and the perception of subsequent targets. Little is known about how cue properties, such as depth, influence insect attention. One robust cue to depth is stereoscopic disparity, which is the difference in the position of an object in the views of the two eyes. Praying mantises are known to use disparity to judge the distance to prey and are therefore ideal insect models to investigate its role in attention. We investigated how three cue properties - position, duration and stereoscopic disparity - affect mantis selective attention towards subsequent targets. We fitted mantises with 3D glasses and presented them with a cue in 2D or 3D, followed by two 3D stimuli: a high-contrast target and a 'distractor' at different contrasts. Our results show that cue position and distractor contrast had the most influence on responses to targets, with no strong effect of disparity. Compared with the 'uncued' condition, cues in two of our disparity conditions reduced target responses if presented on the opposite side of the screen, when the distractor was absent. The cues affected subsequent selective attention even when they did not themselves elicit head saccades, suggesting covert but not overt attention to the cues. Our results show that the position of prior cues can affect mantis selective attention and add further evidence for the complexity of attention-like processes in insects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.